Crime: Hall & Player (2008) Study - Topic 2

Question 1

What prompted Hall & Player’s 2008 study?

Answer 1

Dror conducted a study using NON-EXPERTS (students).

Would the results be different / same with fingerprint EXPERTS?

Question 2

What were the aim(s)?

Answer 2

1- To investigate if the fingerprint experts were emotionally affected by the case details in the report.

2- To investigate if the emotional context would bias the judgement of expert analysis (as in Dror).

Question 3

Who were the participants?

Answer 3

70 volunteer fingerprint experts.
-> 3 months to 30 years experience.
-> Working for the Metropolitan Police.

Question 4

What were the materials used?

Answer 4

-> £50 note with ambiguous fingerprint.
-> Demographic sheet.
-> Feedback sheet
-> Scanned fingerprints (compare w/ note)
-> Crime scene report.

Question 5

What was the method used?

Answer 5

Lab experiment

(Designed to be as naturalistic as possible - although some controls).

Question 6

What was the independent variable?

Answer 6

1- Low emotional context
2- High emotional context

Question 7

What was the dependent variable?

Answer 7

Whether the participants:

1- Felt affected by the scenario
2- Affected their decision / judge the print

Question 8

Describe the procedure used

Answer 8

BEFORE:

1- Ambiguous finger print on a £50 note.

2- Ps were tested during working hours in a typical fingerprint analysis room within the New Scotland Yard fingerprint analysis room within the New Scotland Yard Fingerprint Bureau.

3- Told to act as they would in a normal working day, however not to discuss the analysis of the prints or the experiment itself.

4- Ps were randomly assigned to one of 2 conditions in equal amounts: high / low emotional context condition.

DURING:

5- Ps completed demographic info sheet (experiences, employment etc.) and then after the examination, asked to decide inf the fingerprint was:
-> Identification (a match)
-> Not an identification (not a match)
-> Insufficient (not enough detail)
-> Insufficient detail to establish identity.

6- Once examination complete - Ps given a feedback sheet:
-> Did you refer to the crime scene examination report prior to assessing the prints?
-> If so, which information did you read?
-> Did the examination report affect your analysis? If so, how?

Question 9

Elaborate:

Low emotional context condition

Answer 9

Examination report referring to an allegation of FORGERY of a £50 note

-> Victimless crime.

Question 10

Elaborate:

High emotional context condition

Answer 10

Examination report referring to an allegation of MURDER.

-> 2 shots at the victim.

Question 11

Elaborate:

Examination report

Answer 11

Person going into convenience shop and pay with £50 note to cashier who either:

-> Accepted it but realised later it was forged and reported to the police.

OR

-> Realised and confronted the customer who then shot the cashier twice.

Question 12

What were the results?

Answer 12

READ CRIME SCENE REPORT:
57 PS (30/57 = high emotional context).

INFLUENCED BY REPORT:
-> High = 52%
-> Low = 6%

= Shows:
Overall, so significant different in print analysis between the high and low context groups.

RESULTS SHOWED:
Although some experts in the high context thought they were affected by report, the context did not affect their final fingerprint identification, so results were NOT SIGNIFICANT.

Question 13

What was concluded?

Answer 13

Emotional context did not bias their decision making, and that ‘experts are more adept at dealing with fingerprint analysis in a non-emotional detached manner than non-experts’.

Question 14

Evaluation

Ecological validity

Answer 14

LOW:
-> Situation was not real (and Ps knew it - for purpose of study) : demand characteristics (taken less seriously) = not as emotionally affected.

HIGH:
-> Conducted in Ps normal working environment.

TO IMPROVE / INCREASE:
-> Researchers should not tell the Ps the fingerprints were not from a real case.

-> However: not ethical.
= Break: deception, informed consent etc.

Question 15

Why do you think Hall & Player’s study did not support the reliability of Dror’s (2006) study?

Answer 15

NOT RELIABLE:

1- Findings were different for Hall & Player’s and Dror’s 2006 study.

-> In Dror’s study, the students were affected by the emotional context, which shows confirmation bias.

-> But in Halls & Player’s study, the sample were experts and (so) the emotional context didn’t affect them, showing no confirmation bias.

= So, there was no reliability because the results & conclusions from the two studies didn’t match / agree with each other (inconsistent).

Question 16

Evaluate the sample.

Answer 16

The sample was good.

= 70 Ps (good size), who were all real experts.

HOWEVER:
All from the Metropolitan police

-> They all got the same training & the police is run slightly differently / different rules and regulations from other police.

-> Also, only fingerprint experts were included in the sample, so cannot generalise to other forensic researchers.

Question 17

DEBATES:

Usefulness of this study?

Answer 17

1- Helps us understand that we can provide the crime scene report to the fingerprint analysists prior to them matching fingerprints (has implications for judicial system).

HOWEVER:
2- Shows crime scene report can only be given to experts not all fingerprint analysists, and the results from this study can also not be generalised to DNA analysists etc. so the usefulness of its application is narrow.

Question 18

DEBATES:

Freewill / determinism?

Answer 18

The whole point of the study is about suggesting that fingerprint analysists don’t have freewill as their actions can be impacted by what they hear, see, and read.

By making the suggestion that experts are affected by external factors, the study helps support that fingerprint analysts do have freewill due to the Ps from the study not being affected by the emotional context, but it does ask the question to what extent they have freewill.

Question 19

DEBATES:

Socially sensitive?

Answer 19

1- Study involves crime which is both low emotional context and high emotional context.

2- Validity is being questioned, and the validity of their expertise is being challenged / the accuracy of such experts, which suggests that they are not always 100% reliable.
-> This could be used against them in court as the credibility of their decision can be challenged due to study’s results.
-> (Could be asked if they had read the crime scene report which could then affect people’s opinions on the validity of their decision etc.)